SCRA Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LA LOI SUR LE SYSTÈME CORRECTIONNEL ET LA MISE EN LIBERTÉ SOUS CONDITION DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 31, 1999

• 1533

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe-Nord, Lib.)): I declare that this session of the Sub-Committee on Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is now open.

[English]

We have with us today the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, the Solicitor General; Mr. Ole Ingstrup, who is the commissioner for Corrections Canada; and Mr. Willie Gibbs, who is the chairman of the National Parole Board. Thank you, gentlemen.

We were planning to go through until 6.30 p.m. I understand that there are some tight timeframes. Mr. Minister, you need to leave around 4.30 p.m., and Mr. Ingstrup, you need to leave around 5.15 p.m., so for the benefit of the members, we will know in posing our questions what the time restrictions are.

I believe we have an opening statement from the minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Chairman, before hearing our witnesses, I would like to make sure that we have had ample prior notice of this meeting.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I presume that if our witnesses leave before we have obtained all the needed information to do our work, we might have to call them again.

The Chairman: Certainly. We intend to carry on with our work until we have all the necessary information.

[English]

We will have an opening statement from the minister, and Mr. Ingstrup, I believe you don't have an opening statement. Then I would suggest, with Mr. Gibbs' indulgence, that we could do that part, go right to the questions, and then deal with your opening statement after the others have had to take their leave. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, would you like to start with your opening statement.

• 1535

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you, Chairman Paul. I'm pleased to be here today to take part in the review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, better known as the CCRA.

I don't know if you introduced him or not, but my deputy minister, Jean Fournier, is here today as well.

Public safety is at the heart of the government's mandate, and it is the mission of my ministry. I firmly believe the committee's review of the CCRA is very important. The CCRA was originally proclaimed in November 1992. The purpose of the act then, as it is now, is the protection of Canadians. I am very pleased that this committee has been travelling across the country to listen to what Canadians have to say. We need to listen to what concerned citizens have to say about how well they think the act is working, and it is all the more timely owing to the fact that 1999 marks the 100th anniversary of conditional release in Canada. The review of the CCRA is a prime opportunity for Canadians to work together to improve public safety, and it is an essential part of the government's ongoing effort to build safer communities.

I'm particularly pleased that the committee has been able to speak to a wide variety of people involved with the act: parole board members and staff, wardens, correctional officers, parole officers, citizen advisory committee members, and inmates themselves from various institutions across the country.

On March 3, 1998, the ministry initiated a broad public consultation process through the release of the consultation paper, Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society: The CCRA Five Years Later. Over 175 individuals provided their views in person. A further 60 respondents provided their views in writing. During these consultations, there were few proposals to amend the act itself. Criticisms and proposals for change more often referred to the way the act was being implemented.

That being said, I assure you that I am open to suggestions that will make the correctional system even more effective. I know during your consultations some key issues have arisen that I too have encountered since my appointment. I would like to take a few moments to outline some of these issues.

As a country, we must tackle the special challenges proposed by aboriginal corrections. Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates among developed countries, at 129 per 100,000. Behind this figure hides an even more serious problem, the situation of aboriginal offenders. All Canadians should be deeply disturbed when 3% of our population accounts for 16% of all incarcerated federal offenders. The aboriginal incarceration rate is at 735 per 100,000. That's more than six times the national average.

For the past several years, we have been active in several initiatives that directly involve first nation communities. Some of you have visited some of the healing lodges, and you are aware that we are implementing agreements with native communities under sections 81 and 85 of the act. But any suggestions this committee may have are definitely most welcome. What do you think we can do to address adequately the overrepresentation of aboriginal persons in our institutions? Should we be building on what we are already doing, or do we need to find new solutions to address the situation?

As Solicitor General, I am also very concerned about the serious problem of substance abuse among offenders. I was shocked when I learned that almost seven out of every ten offenders have serious problems with alcohol and drugs, and over half of all federal offenders find themselves behind bars because of crimes related to substance abuse.

In the coming year, the ministry plans to expand the community-based programs that provide treatment, training and supervision for offenders on conditional release. I understand that many of you had an opportunity to observe a parole post-suspension hearing where substance abuse was an issue. I'm very open to any suggestions you may have with respect to tackling the problems of substance abuse among offenders in institutions and in our community.

• 1540

Another area where I would appreciate your advice is in the area of victims. I believe we must do all we can to respect the rights and needs of victims of crime. Recently, as you know, the Minister of Justice introduced a bill to strengthen the voice of victims in the criminal justice system. I understand you have heard representations on victims issues. I look forward to hearing what you think we can do to more adequately address victims' needs in the corrections and conditional release process.

I understand that the subcommittee has also heard concerns about accelerated parole review, or APR, as it is often called. As you know, Bill C-51 came into force on May 1, 1999. It excludes offenders convicted of organized crime offences from being eligible for APR. But do you think we need to go further? In particular, how should we deal with first-time non-violent drug offenders or property crime offenders when the parole board has reason to believe they pose a high risk to reoffend?

Another issue that has been raised is whether offenders should continue to have the unconditional right to waive their parole review. As well, we must be mindful of the Auditor General's recent report, which found that CSC should continue to make progress in the quality and timeliness of work to prepare offenders and their cases for consideration by the National Parole Board.

Those are only some of the issues with respect to the CCRA review. I know you have been looking at many other important issues, such as correctional staff training, statutory release, detention, and the role and function of the correction investigator. It goes without saying that I welcome your views on all these subjects.

At all points throughout the corrections and conditional release system, we also face the challenge of improving public awareness and encouraging constructive public debate on the issues surrounding public safety, corrections, and the parole process. If we can raise public awareness about how corrections and the parole process contribute to public safety, I believe we will also start to change the nature of the public debate.

We have made great strides in engaging citizens and organizations, often with the valuable help of the volunteer sector, in helping to shape the future of Canada's criminal justice system. My ministry has undertaken a number of public education programs, such as the television documentary A Test of Justice, but more can always be done. Perhaps your report would expand on what you think we're doing well and where we can do more.

While we have indeed made progress in helping Canadians feel safe on their streets and in their homes, there is always room for improvement. My staff has kept me informed as the committee's work has progressed, and I would like to take the time to thank you publicly, to thank you for the many days and nights away from your family and friends, to thank you for your patience in planes, trains and automobiles as you reach out to Canadians, and for your dedication to the cause of improving the system that works to keep Canadians safe. I look forward to reading your report and seeing your recommendations.

That concludes my opening statement. I suspect there will be a few questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to questions now, in rounds of seven minutes. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you.

The minister correctly put it that we're very concerned about the way in which the act is being implemented. My questions are for Mr. Ingstrup.

As you know, there has been a tremendous amount of concern and an awful lot in the press about the whole issue of 50-50, the numerical quotas. I'd like to go back to the starting point of these concerns. I wonder if you're familiar with a three-page document, “Meeting, General Staff Assembly, 12 March 1998”.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada): I don't know if....

Mr. Jim Abbott: I wonder if I could have the clerk take it to Mr. Ingstrup.

I'm assuming that the document is an authentic document. This document says:

The Government, under our present Solicitor General, Andy Scott has indicated that by the year 2000 he would like to see 50% of our inmates in the institution and 50% of our inmates in the community.

• 1545

Now, without specific reference to that document, I wonder if you can tell me, reflecting back to that time, whether that was your understanding from the Solicitor General of the day.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As I've said a number of times, there certainly are no quotas or target rates for conditional release and there will not be. Public safety is and will be the number one issue. But I'll let Mr. Ingstrup respond to your specific question.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know whether we could also get a copy of the document that was circulated. I would like us all to be on the same wavelength.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have more copies, Jim?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: In English and in French?

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: I just have one more here with me.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We could have this document duplicated and circulate it to committee members.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): The document was attached to the brief of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, which is already before this committee.

The Chairman: But it may not be in everyone's possession at this time.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If we just reflect back to my question, was it your understanding at that time that the Solicitor General of the day was looking at 50-50 quotas, or was this an erroneous understanding contained in this document?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Minister, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to talk a little in general about this whole 50-50 issue, because it has obviously become an issue of some concern, by the way, not the least to me.

Mr. Scott, when he was Solicitor General, never asked me to implement any particular number or percentage of people on the inside or the outside. What he talked about was a more balanced relationship between the inside and the outside. It wasn't difficult to understand where that came from.

It came as a result of the Auditor General's report, which very clearly indicated at the time that the Correctional Service of Canada did not work effectively and efficiently enough on the program side, on the side of preparing cases well for the National Parole Board, etc. Therefore, a significant number of people were presumably spending time behind bars who did not need to be there, but who were only there because of—for lack of a better word—bureaucratic red tape. The invitation from both the Auditor General and the minister was to get rid of that and work as effectively and efficiently as possible.

So the fundamental answer to your question is no. Neither Mr. Scott nor any other minister asked me to implement 50-50.

Now, where does that 50-50 come from? It comes from a strategic planning exercise shortly after I came back to Corrections. I had read the Auditor General's report and talked to the minister about the report, the conclusions and what could possible be done about them. We identified a whole series of things we could be doing better, such as case assessment, security classification, institutional placement of offenders, and a long range of other things.

Altogether, there were 16 of what we called levers in the process of moving people through the system in order to meet what was essentially the rule that cases ought to be presented to the parole board—not necessarily released—at one-third, which they were not. So we asked the regions, if we did this very well and pulled these 16 levers very well, being mindful of the fact that we are in the business—as the minister has said many times—of public safety, what number of people could we safely release into the community by 2000, given what we know now about the composition of the population, the demographics, etc., and the 16 levers we were supposed to be doing something about. The best estimate at that time was something that looked like 50% on the inside and 50% on the outside.

• 1550

Now we, know about the ability of the service to pull these levers. We know more about the composition of our population than we did at that time. It is pretty clear to us at this time that what is most likely to be the case is something in the vicinity of 43-57, or thereabouts, by 2000. But again, that's something that will change over time.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If I could respectfully interject, because we do have some other questions here, I wonder what the public at large is supposed to make of comments in this memo that refer to “incidents in the community”—in other words, crimes—that are “not very nice”, but they take comfort that: “Some of the cases that we release from here may go wrong, but the Warden said that he will stand behind us.” This does not give the public at large any feeling of confidence in the work your officials are doing. Would you agree with that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right, and as I've said a couple of times here, there has been some unfortunate and overly simplified language in this whole process. The bottom line, however, remains that we are in the business of contributing to public safety, and there have been no attempts made on our part to get the parole board, for instance, to release more people. We have, on the contrary, said to the parole board constantly that the criteria it has established are good criteria. We don't need to change that. We need to have people better prepared for release.

Mr. Jim Abbott: In your own words, in your own editorial, you said:

To reach a 50/50 split by year 2000 will be a professional challenge—but not at all unattainable: a constant focus on safe, timely reintegration is required. Every step counts, every day is important.

I suggest to you that although you have paid lip service to the issue of safety, the fact that you started by targeting a 50-50 split by 2000 and then concluded by saying “Every step counts, every day is important” gives a sense of urgency to hit that 50-50 target as a numerical target, and those targets simply do not exist in legislation.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are two things, again with your permission, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to say.

The Chairman: It's Mr. Abbott's time, so please answer, Mr. Ingstrup, as concisely as possible.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you.

I want to invite the committee's attention to the whole editorial. It is full of words like “safe reintegration”, “ready for a safe return to community” over and over again. I am saying the results of our work have proven to reduce crime, not increase crime. We are at one of the lowest levels of recidivism we have had.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Marceau, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: First, Mr. Minister and Mr. Commissioner, I thank you for having come to meet us today. My questions are mainly addressed to you Commissioner.

Mr. Commissioner, do you agree with me that all employees of the Correctional Service of Canada, including yourself, must respect the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. The law applies to everyone.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do you agree with me that nowhere in this Act are there any figures set as objectives, goals or working hypotheses within the guidelines provided for your work and the work done by all the employees of your service?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes. The Act certainly does contain guidelines.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Sometimes guidelines come with figures or percentages.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, no there is no such thing.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Without any figures accompanying these guidelines or objectives, wouldn't some people be likely to launch civil suits against the Correctional Service of Canada if the employees of the service tried to fulfil objectives defined by figures in various documents, but in no way shown in the Act itself?

• 1555

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I do not think so. Our employees have begun to concentrate more and more on what must be done in every case to respect the provisions of the Act. This involves improving our working methods and respecting established timelines.

Mr. Richard Marceau: As the Commissioner, you are the head of the Correctional Service. Would I be right in saying that as the head, if you were to formulate a working hypothesis or figures to be attained as an objective by your employees, the hypothesis or figures would be considered as objectives for evaluating your employees?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, this is not the case. As the figures clearly show, we have no intention of ensuring that by the year 2000, 50% of offenders will be reinserted into society and 50% incarcerated. All our employees understand very well that these are not objectives, but rather predictions that we use for planning, as all other departments do.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am an MP, and as such I have a few employees. I could tell them, for instance, that according to my work plan they should meet 2,000 citizens during the coming months. Don't you think that if I show them such a work plan, the employees would be led to believe that I am setting an objective for them to reach?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That would depend on how you had explained the target to them. As you doubtless know, I sent several letters to the regional deputy commissioners, clearly explaining the difference between targets and planning tools. When your committee put this question to nearly all the penitentiary wardens in Canada, it received a negative answer. These wardens said that they did not believe there were any quotas or targets, but they do realize that they are expected to do their work in an efficient and timely manner.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Just one second, I didn't quite understand. Are you saying that if a person works in accordance with the working hypothesis, this person is considered to have done a good job?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Could you repeat what you just said?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We told our employees that they should do a better job in 16 very specific areas. Although they may have thought at one time that we expected them to ensure that 50% of offenders were in the community and 50% were incarcerated, they know now that this is not the case because the existing working conditions are better known.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm having some difficulty getting your statements to agree. For the benefit of my colleagues, I will read an extract from a memorandum drafted July 3, 1998, by the Ontario Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Reynolds, which was among the documents compiled by the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. Please excuse my French accent.

[English]

As of today we have 23 more incarcerated inmates than we had at the beginning of the fiscal year and 21 more in the community. Obviously if this trend continues we will distance ourselves even further from our agreed upon goal.

[Translation]

This appears to me to be a fairly precise goal. Did Mr. Reynolds perhaps choose his words poorly?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Reynolds and I exchanged many memos in order to clarify the purpose of this working hypothesis. We agreed that the language used was not the best. It's very clear that we should focus more on the means than on the figures.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. I have not read through the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Reynolds and yourself, but this memorandum that Mr. Reynolds drafted was sent to all the district directors. Did Mr. Reynolds subsequently send out a memorandum clarifying that this was not a goal, but something else instead?

• 1600

In second place, this is in my view a fairly serious situation. Was Mr. Reynolds disciplined for departing from the guideline that you are supposed to have established, according to which there will be no quotas?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: He was not disciplined, but we did tell him that a different choice of words would be more appropriate, which he explained to the members of your committee when you visited the region.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Did all employees receive clarification regarding Mr. Reynold's statements?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I wrote to all the regional deputy commissioners.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Did they in turn write to their staff?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't know, but I spoke with all the wardens here, in Ottawa, at the meeting.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marceau. Your time is up.

[English]

Mr. Mackay, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): On a point of order, the commissioner just mentioned a letter that he wrote in response to the information presented by Mr. Marceau. Would it be possible for this committee to get a copy of that letter?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. We would be happy to go back and see whatever there is.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: If you don't have it, we'll make sure that it's provided.

The Chairman: You could send it to the clerk's office, please. Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: While we're on that point, Mr. Chair, and I assume the clock's not running for me right now in my questions—

The Chairman: It's just winding up.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I notice that the commissioner has with him a number of binders. I'm wondering if as well we could have those tabled, and we could take a look at the documentation he has with him today.

The Chairman: What binders are these?

Mr. Peter MacKay: The documents that are on the table. I'm wondering if we might have an opportunity to do that as part of our overall review.

The Chairman: No, if reference is made to a document, then it's proper to have it tabled. I don't think we can ask witnesses to bring their entire offices to the committee.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't think that's his entire office.

The Chairman: If reference is made to them, we can ask for them.

So, Mr. MacKay, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the Solicitor General, in particular, and all the other gentlemen for being here today.

My questions are also for Mr. Ingstrup.

Mr. Commissioner, I guess we're down to semantics, and you used a phrase “unfortunate language” in response to some of the earlier questions. I have gone through a number of the documents that have already been referred to, and there does appear to be a number of instances where there is reference in one form or another to numerical figures.

I've just made a checklist of some of those references: numerical goals, targets, balanced distribution, reintegration agendas, reintegration plans, reintegration process, achievable numbers, regionally required increases in releases, release objectives, equalization, institutional community population, agreed-upon goals and targets. That is some of the language and the semantics that I understand you might refer to as “unfortunate language”. However, it seems to come down more and more to when is a quota not a quota.

In the follow-up to some of the questions already posed by my colleagues, I wonder if you will acknowledge that there is a difference between an approved process—and the process that I'm talking about here obviously is guidelines that govern you and your department—and adapting the process to achieve an agreed-upon goal, target, or quota. There's an obvious difference there. Would you acknowledge that?

Further to that, do you not see that there is a real danger in injecting a philosophy to your CSC officials or to the wardens that encourages them to meet numerical figures, targets, or quotas for release? This then becomes an overriding factor at the end of the day when a decision has to be made. If the number is more important than the process of arriving at the number, do you not see this as endangering what the Solicitor General has already enunciated as the most important feature, mainly, public protection?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. MacKay, I've been asked a number of times in the House, and there have been a number of statements made by the commissioner. There are absolutely no quotas. Public safety is always the number one issue. We are not close to any quotas. There's nothing to get close to. The figure was 50-50. He indicated why that figure appeared. It's unfortunate, but public safety is always the number one issue.

I don't want to take it from the commissioner, but that is exactly how it is.

• 1605

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Minister, I appreciate your answer; however, there is mounting evidence to the contrary that suggests these figures are already out there. Perhaps they've been adapted. Perhaps a change has taken place since that time.

I want to refer specifically to another document that's been referenced. From July 3, 1998, there's a document entitled “Reintegration”. It was sent out from Brendan Reynolds, deputy commissioner for Ontario. That document speaks of an “agreed upon goal”; a “reintegration agenda” that continues to be a main priority; “realistic, challenging, but at the same time, achievable numbers”; reintegration agendas that will also lead to the discussion with other wardens of “individual accountability towards reintegration” and site performance.

So this seems to be implicit. If those numbers are not met, perhaps there will be some discipline coming down. It says we must strengthen our focus on the reintegration agenda.

Throughout all of this there is another mysterious document floating around. I wonder if you're familiar with “Operation Bypass”, which is the title on the participants' manual.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I am.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My question to you, Mr. Commissioner, is what are we bypassing? That, again, must be very unfortunate language that was chosen.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Not at all.

Mr. Chairman, I have to go back to square one here. Point one is that the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. MacKay and Mr. Chairman, does not release anybody; the National Parole Board does. We have never asked the National Parole Board to change its criteria or to apply them in a more lenient fashion. On the reintegration agenda, sir, reintegration is what we do for a living. We don't do anything else. We are preparing people to come back as law-abiding citizens. That is CSC's contribution to safer societies.

To have them as safely as possible returned to society—do we do that? Yes, we absolutely do that with the National Parole Board. We have the lowest recidivism figures that we can find between our two organizations, and, by the way, the lowest we can find anywhere in the world.

Let me go back to your assumption that we are releasing people. Mr. MacKay, Mr. Chairman, even if you assumed that we wanted just to release people no matter what level of risk they represented, that would be counter-productive to our own goals. They would come back then with new offences and serve the old sentence plus a new one, and therefore, move the relationship in the wrong direction.

The philosophy of the Correctional Service of Canada is of course to follow the law. If you combine the Auditor General's report with what was said in the public accounts committee, it very powerfully points out that the Correctional Service of Canada at that time had to become more serious about preparing offenders in a better and more timely fashion. That's the origin of all of this.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect, the document itself that Mr. Reynolds has penned in July 1998 sets an exact numerical figure to be achieved—660 to be released by December 31, 1999. That number you have tried to correct, or you've put other language on it and you've said it's not an arbitrary figure. It's not something that was just drawn out of thin blue air. How do you arrive at this number?

Putting a numerical figure forward indicates to me that somewhere there must be some compromise within those existing safeguards that are in place. If you're to achieve this figure, something has to be overridden.

The Chairman: Could you give a quick response, please, because the time is up.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Each regional deputy commissioner looks at the population he has at hand and he applies the tools he has in the preparation of the cases for the National Parole Board to these numbers. He comes up with what he believes the individual wardens should produce in order to produce that on time. It's not a target. If there is a public safety issue, then that's the end of the story. It is that simple.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Wappel, you have seven minutes.

• 1610

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. My questions are also for the commissioner.

Mr. Abbott mentioned this meeting of the general staff assembly on March 12, 1998. Commissioner, when did you become aware of the minutes of that meeting?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I couldn't tell you.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Can you guess?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, I couldn't.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Are you aware of the minutes?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I read a lot of documents. I can't recall reading this, but we had a discussion about a number of things. There was another institution that used some language like that as well. That inspired a letter from me which said, look, this is not the way it should be explained to our staff. I believe it was in August 1998.

Mr. Tom Wappel: My colleagues have already mentioned that in that memo there's a specific indication of 50% of inmates in and 50% of inmates out. There's a troubling sentence immediately following that paragraph, and I quote, “Some of the cases that we release from here may go wrong, but the Warden said that he will stand behind us”.

If you read this, Commissioner, what would your response to that sentence be?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The way you explained it, sir, gives me a realistic view, to some extent, by the warden that no matter what we do there is a risk associated with releasing people, but they still have to be released.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The words are “that we release from here may go wrong”. Are you suggesting that “from here” refers to the place as opposed to the time?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes. I thought so.

Mr. Tom Wappel: You thought so? All right. A few months later you wrote an editorial. Did you write that editorial on Let's Talk?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, I did.

Mr. Tom Wappel: You said, among other things: “...the Solicitor General has asked me to find a more balanced distribution of the offender population.” Is that statement correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Which Solicitor General was it?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Scott was saying that exactly in this forum before the justice committee.

Mr. Tom Wappel: What kind of balanced distribution did the Solicitor General mean?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: What I think the Solicitor General meant at the time was that we should take the Auditor General's report seriously and get on with the implementation of the recommendations in the report. Therefore, we would have a more balanced approach. There was nothing like a 50-50 split.

Mr. Tom Wappel: No, excuse me, Commissioner, it's not a balanced approach. Your words are “a balanced distribution of the offender population”. Now, “a balanced distribution of the offender population” refers, I presume, to some amount in and some amount out. Isn't that correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The last paragraph, as pointed out, says, in your own words, “To reach a 50/50 split by year 2000 will be a professional challenge”.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So it's your own words that left the impression that there would be a 50-50 split. Isn't that true?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's not true?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, it's not true.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So what do you mean by a 50-50 split, then?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: You have to understand this in the context. Everybody knew what we were talking about at the strategic planning session, where they said if we did our work extremely well according to the guidelines in the Auditor General's report, we were probably going to end up with half of them in the institutions and half of them in the community.

The point of this whole editorial is to say, look, public safety is number one. The inmates are there to serve their time to be prepared for a release; they are not there to waste their time. That's basically the essence of the Auditor General's report.

I say five or six times in the couple of paragraphs that we are not compromising public safety. Therefore, in a bit of a doubting way I am saying that when you pull all these levers together perhaps that will be the result. I am saying it could be a challenge. It has proven to be true, because we are not getting close to it.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Commissioner, you said that public safety is the most important issue. In that editorial you said:

Once in the community we will do what we can to limit the need for us to return the offender to custody—especially for technical violations of his or her conditional release.

What does that mean?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: What that means, sir, is that we will improve our ability to supervise these people in the community. We will do our best to make sure we work well with the police in the community. We will do our best to put new programs in the communities so that there is less need to throw them back into jail, because to throw people back into prison does not necessarily contribute to public safety, the same way as changing—

• 1615

Mr. Tom Wappel: Just a minute. What's a technical violation?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: A technical violation is a violation of conditions set by the National Parole Board, often at our recommendation, that are not associated with any kind of criminal activity.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Let's say, for example, that the parole board says you're not to associate with known criminals, and the prisoner does in fact associate with known criminals. Would you consider that a technical violation?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It is what it's called. It's the name for it.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So you don't think that's something a person should be brought back for. If he's told not to associate with known criminals and does, that's a technical violation that you're prepared to ignore.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't think we are saying that. We're saying that it depends on the individual case. And that's the way we've always worked with the National Parole Board.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm asking you: Is it a technical violation to take alcohol or drugs when you've been told not to?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So that's termed a technical violation.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: A technical violation in our language is a violation of the parole conditions other than criminal activity.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Right.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's the way we distinguish between the two.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The inmate is told that he must abstain from alcohol and drugs, he must abstain from associating with known criminals. If he breaches those...those are technical violations. And you say you want to limit the need for us to return the offender, especially for technical violations. What kind of message is that sending to inmates?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: In my view, sir, with respect, it sends the right message: make sure the inmates do not get into a position where they violate technical conditions and, therefore, there is less of a—

Mr. Tom Wappel: But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say we'll try to prevent technical violations.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, it does.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It says we won't bring them in for technical violations.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Where do you see that, sir?

Mr. Tom Wappel: In the second paragraph:

Once in the community we will do what we can to limit the need for us to return the offender to custody—especially for technical violations of his or her conditional release

—as opposed to, for example, by trying to prevent technical violations of his or her conditional release.

That's the second, I would argue, confusing item in a very short editorial, including the use of the words “50/50 split”, and you have to look to the head when you're looking at the directions for the body.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If people are caught violating any kinds of conditions, we will react. We will react—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Like drugs or alcohol.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: For drugs or alcohol, or whatever. We will react and often suspend the person. We report the person to the National Parole Board and have a decision on whether that person should have his or her parole revoked or whether they can go back after the suspension has been lifted. That is, again, a decision that we and the National Parole Board take together. That particular passage in my editorial says that we will limit the need for us to return offenders, assuming that if there is a technical violation we will react.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup. That's our time. But just as a point of clarification, this issue of what a technical violation is has come up before. It's other than the recommission of another crime. Is that the real and practical distinction?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay.

Now we'll go to our second round, three minutes, and then alternate between—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, since the committee can decide for itself, I propose that we have another round of seven minutes. Three minutes is not enough.

The Chairman: But the rules of procedure that we had adopted—

Mr. Richard Marceau: We can always change them. Would you agree to coming back to seven minutes?

The Chairman: Seven minutes after the three minutes?

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, for a second round of seven minutes.

[English]

I would also ask....

[Translation]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Five or seven minutes, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Seven minutes. We are here until 6:30 p.m. We have time to delve into the matter.

[English]

I would remind the committee members that we've had one round now of all parties, and we've dealt with one issue. I think there are other issues that the subcommittee, in its travel, has to consider in preparing our report. That's just a note.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify your comment. That is the reason we asked that these witnesses maybe come back.

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Jim Gouk: It may take some time with Mr. Ingstrup alone to get to the bottom of some things that are very troubling for members of this committee, before we get to the others.

The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, I'm not trying to restrict the questioning, but I am trying to make sure we're not saying the same things over and over again, and it's becoming a little bit repetitive. So let's—

Mr. Jim Gouk: When the answers become repetitive, we'll be able to move on.

• 1620

The Chairman: Okay, carry on. Mr. Abbott, for seven minutes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I respect your perspective, but this goes to the heart of what the minister himself said, and that was how the law, this act, is being enforced. This is an absolutely classic example. When I was at Kent Institution in July 1998, I was apprised of this 50-50 issue. That was the understanding there was on the part of the people—the staff, the Corrections staff, the management people—I interviewed in July at Kent Institution in British Columbia.

So I have to ask Mr. Ingstrup, in regard to this July 3 memo on reintegration by Mr. Reynolds, did you indicate earlier that you had written or had basically repudiated...or clarified that the wording in this memo and the way it has been interpreted had been completely overturned by you? Is that what you said? Did I understand that correctly?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think I have done, Mr. Abbott, anything I could to make sure my staff would not misunderstand this in the same way as some people outside the Correctional Service of Canada have misunderstood it. I took it seriously. I said if people can misunderstand it outside, we could have misunderstandings from inside as well. So I sent out a letter—I think it was in August 1998. I have repeated the same thing every time I have had meetings in the regions. I have repeated that at our senior management meetings that we have every six months, and I think it is all on record that I have said that.

May I just say one thing here? It has to do with a couple of questions raised about the technical violations. We should not forget that we are still putting 2,000 people back into jail in this country on an annual basis at the federal level for violations of technical conditions like drinking, taking drugs, or associating with other criminals. It's not as if it's something that never happens. It actually happens quite often.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I want to make the point clear, if it wasn't understood correctly, that if you do get caught with drugs or alcohol when you're ordered not to, that is a reason you could be put back in prison. And there are, as you said, 2,000 a year who go back on these technical violations. I thought when Mr. Wappel was asking the question there could have been the misunderstanding that nobody went back for technical violations, when in fact they do.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

Now, you've indicated, Mr. Ingstrup, through this presentation today and also in your attendance before committee on main estimates, that you were trying to respond to the Auditor General, in effect, speeding up the process of reintegration. Is Operation Bypass part of that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: As a matter of fact, sir, it is, and I never got around to responding to Mr. MacKay on that. Operation Bypass is simply one of these processes that any responsible major organization has to go through from time to time when there are too many processes, too many policies, too much red tape in the organization. And “bypass” means to unclutter the system, to get to the essentials and get people to focus on that which is important, and not all the things that do not contribute to public safety.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So your representation—I want to be very clear and very, very fair with you—is that this Operation Bypass has nothing to do with, nor is there any inference of, bypassing any of the act, laws, rules, or regulations?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I want to give you the opportunity to make that clear.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: As a matter of fact, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the way I used “bypass”, gave it the name, was that like a bypass, we need to unclutter the veins to make sure the process can proceed as it should. And it's interesting, if you look at the French text of the same, it's called “retour à l'essentiel”. So that's what it means.

Mr. Jim Abbott: And yet under Operation Bypass.... I've only had a cursory glance at the document; it's a very thick document. It would appear to a layman like me that there is a reduction of the number of referrals for detention or a reduction of the revocation of conditional release. That seems to be the tenor of that.

• 1625

So while it doesn't necessarily...no, let's rephrase that. While it does not go to the issue of you or your officials trying to work around the law, nonetheless, it does seem to be speeding up things for the sake of speeding things up in order to meet the Auditor General's goal.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The Auditor General's goal, sir, if I may, Minister, is to get us to respond, as a good public administration should respond, to the act that governs our administration. He is basically saying you cannot have Parliament saying that at one sixth of a person's sentence the person should be reviewed for day parole, and yet the organization wouldn't be ready to present the inmate to the National Parole Board. I was saying you can't be late with your things. And one of the things that happened here was that we looked into it and saw we were late, because there was all kinds of lack of focus on the essentials, and a whole a bunch of procedures that didn't add to public safety were included.

I might also say that as a result of all of this, the slight increase we have had—and it's not a dramatic one at all—in releases and fewer returns has led to less recidivism. So Canadian society is safer today, when you look at our population, than it has been ever before.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have one last question. It refers again...and I think Mr. Wappel asked it, but I apologize, I didn't understand your answer. This is a quote, I believe from you:

Once in the community we will do what we can to limit the need for us to return the offender to custody—especially for technical violations of his...conditional release.

Help us understand how that fits together with the minister's assertion about the safety of the public being the number one issue.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It's easy to understand, sir. No, it's not easy to understand, but I think I can explain to you how it works.

The idea in this is that if we expand our activities in the community, we will be more on top of our cases, be more in touch with the offenders, and know more about what they are doing. Therefore the number of people who go into technical violations will be lower, and our need to send them back to prison will be lower. That's the philosophy. To do more for public safety in the community will lead to fewer technical violations, and therefore our need to send people back will go down.

But as the minister just said, it is still pretty high. Overall we send about 2,000 people. Two thousand out of about five thousand admissions come from non-criminal technical violations on an annual basis. So it's not as if we're not reacting.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup.

Did you have something to add, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: There is a problem with offenders when they are released. In regard to support groups for when you are addicted to drugs or alcohol, I question—I want you to look at it too—if we have enough or the proper support. How do we come up with the proper support to address the drug and alcohol problem? They hopefully deal with their addiction in the institution, but then when you're out on conditional release, it's sometimes difficult enough to be an alcoholic, but to be an alcoholic and an ex-con is a double whammy.

I'm not here to criticize anything, but that's something I hope you look at. I've certainly indicated to the commissioner that it's something I'm very interested in addressing. The problem is that when you're an alcoholic and you have broken the law for quite a period of time, and the only way you can acquire drugs or alcohol is by whatever illegal means you used previously, Jim, that's where you're going to go when you come out.

So the only thing I would like to do, with your help and the committee's help, is come up with a type of support program that will help these people.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Myers, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted, first of all, to thank the minister for being here today. It's a great opportunity for us to ask some questions in this very important area.

Mr. Ingstrup, I want to begin with you, if I might. In answer to the previous question and one that had been, I think, asked before that as well, with respect to the public accounts committee and, more to the point, the Auditor General...and the question surrounded preparing people better and in a more timely fashion. And you just responded to a previous question about the procedures that did not add to public safety. Mr. Grose and I were part of that public accounts committee and part of the writing of that report, so I think it's fair to say that we feel strongly in that area.

• 1630

But what I'm really asking is if you could perhaps elaborate a little bit further as to what exactly you're doing in this important area. It seems to me that when we sat down to write that report, there were measured ways we thought were important that should take place in your area, and perhaps you could elaborate on them at this time.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Go ahead.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you, Minister.

As I said, we identified about 16 areas. Some of them were identified in the public accounts committee's report, and we found a few more that we thought would move in the same direction.

One of the most telling examples the Auditor General had in his report was that if you have a person who is serving a sentence of three years of imprisonment, you are obligated as a service under the law to have people prepared for review for day parole if they make application by one-sixth. If we look at the time it takes you to assess and place these people, you only have 19 days to carry out the correctional plan. Therefore, you are bound to be too late. It is our obligation to find a model that can ensure that we are not systematically too late.

So we looked at the 16 areas. One of them is a better and more timely security classification. We looked at how to better do penitentiary placement of offenders so that they don't waste time in areas where nothing happens to them in terms of public safety. We looked at correctional plans, including getting them ready on time and getting information from the provinces, the police, and the courts faster and more securely. We looked at getting assessments and programming booked in time so that people didn't have wasted time in the process.

It has nothing to do with trying to get people out. It is a question of doing safe reintegration in a more rational way, as the Auditor General pointed out, and we agreed with that, and the committee as well, by the way.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I think it's important to note that, Mr. Chairman, because I think it's timely we're dealing with this at this particular juncture as well.

Mr. Gibbs, I wanted to ask you a question with regard to the National Parole Board—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Myers, I think the minister has to leave now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for appearing. Depending on our discussions, the committee may or may not request your further attendance, but the clerk will be in touch with your office if that's required.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They obviously weren't too interested in me while I was here. But, anyhow, this is exactly what I want. I'll be very interested to see your report. All we're interested in doing is a better job.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Myers, you may continue.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted, Mr. Gibbs, to ask you a question with regard to the National Parole Board. We often see in the media some of the cases that go wrong and that are really, for lack of a better way of putting it, sensationalized in the media. I wonder if you could at least explain to a degree whether or not that's representative of what's really happening in that area. I'm hoping you're going to say it's not. If you could maybe speak to that, I think it would be useful for Canadians.

Mr. Willie Gibbs (Chairman, National Parole Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously, when we have a sensational incident such as you described, first of all, it's usually a person on conditional release, either on parole or statutory release, who committed a very violent offence. We are just as concerned as anyone else in this room and the Canadian public. Fortunately, those incidents do not happen very often. Of course, when it happens even once, it's not very good.

• 1635

With regard to the recidivism rate Mr. Ingstrup talked about awhile ago, with day parolees, we have about 5% who recidivate with a new offence; with full parolees, we have about 11% with a new offence; but a violent offence is more like 1% of 2% of all the people we have in the community. So the numbers are very low. Unfortunately, when it happens it makes the news not only regionally but also nationally. I don't know if that answers your question.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to pursue that line of questioning for a minute in terms of perception versus reality. Prior to my being elected to Parliament, I sat for 10 years on the Waterloo Regional Police Service, including as chairman. Waterloo Region is a community of about 450,000 people. We have 700 police officers and civilians and such. I can tell you that I was amazed at the fact that crime was dropping in our community to the extent that it was. Yet if you asked the ordinary citizen, they would say, “No, it's not; in fact, it's on the rise, and we're quite frightened by everything that's taking place.” So I'd really be interested in your perception of that and your take on why that is.

Perhaps you could give some comments as well with regard to the demographics or the reasons at play in terms of seeing crime rates decrease in Canada. I think it's fair to say that in general that's happening, and I think we need to understand it a little more fully.

So perhaps you could elaborate, either you, Mr. Ingstrup, or you, Mr. Gibbs.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'll give my side of it, and Mr. Ingstrup can give his comments.

There are many factors involved in erroneous public perception and many factors that contribute to it. First of all, if you look at the Justice Canada statistics, they will clearly indicate that over the last five or six years crimes have gone down across the country. In fact, some jurisdictions in the U.S. have experienced the same trend. However, the instant media—that is, television, the print media, and so on—make it known very quickly and very widely that crimes are being committed, even if they're not being committed every day. But when it happens, it makes big news.

Also, I would venture to say that about half of the television channels most Canadians watch originate in the States, and when it comes to sensationalizing crimes, it's much worse south of the border than it is in Canada, because they make movies and mini-series out of those episodes. And there are many other factors.

So it's very difficult under all those circumstances to give the Justice Canada statistics and say we're doing much better every year, and then when something really bad happens, they talk about it for days and weeks and months.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Myers.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Ingstrup, I apologize for coming back to the same issue, but I am not sure I have clearly understood. When I was young, my mother told me that I should ask questions until I understood something. So that's what I'm doing.

Last August 18, you wrote a letter to every deputy commissioner in which you said:

[English]

When asked to give a better sense of the implications of this initiative, you proposed to me that a 50-50 split in each region was achievable by the year 2000.

[Translation]

And at the end you say:

[English]

The 50-50 split is our working hypothesis, based on the best information we have today.

[Translation]

Those are your words, not mine.

Furthermore, in answer to questions raised by this committee on May 11 last, you again stated that the objective of your office was to integrate over 40% of inmates into the community and to keep less than 60% of them behind bars. Can you tell me exactly what this objective means?

• 1640

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The same thing was done by hospitals. They said: If there isn't any epidemic, how many operations will be carried out next year and how many operating rooms will we need? It's a result which would—

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, this is what normally would happen.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It's what would happen in certain conditions.

Mr. Richard Marceau: All right.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: These conditions may vary from time to time. For instance, even our analysis of the inmate population can vary from year to year. We realize that in British Columbia, there were more lifers than in other areas, which would obviously affect the ratio of inmates living in the community versus those kept behind bars, since lifers are not released.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm sorry my English isn't any better, but when something is “achievable”, doesn't it mean that it is “something that we must strive for”? Is that right?

[English]

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can see where you're coming from, and that is also one of the reasons why we are trying to explain better what we are doing. However, Mr. Chairman, it's not very easy to explain that in a 15-second clip.

But I can do it by saying that we use in CSC the same model for accountability as they have recommended from the OECD. That means we are looking at input, how many people do we get in, with what kind of crime, and what kind of people are we talking about. We are looking at throughput, at what kind of process are we following while the inmates are there. We are looking at outputs, at how many people will stay in prison and how many people will go out. And then we are looking finally, and most importantly, at outcomes, at how much crime we have in the community, in the population that we are looking at in the community.

What we are looking at is what kinds of changes in the output we are going to see if we make changes in the throughput.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Reynolds' memo says, and again I quote:

[English]

I must reinforce my message delivered when we first met, that the reintegration agenda is and continues to be one of my main priorities.

[Translation]

I think it should be translated by “plan de réinsertion sociale”. What is this reintegration agenda?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The reintegration agenda is simply what is done by the Correctional Service of Canada. We want to help inmates prepare to become law-abiding citizens after they are paroled or at the end of their sentence. This is part of the mandate conferred to us under the Act. We did not invent this; it's our job.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm interested in what you have to say; I'd like to refer to the same memo, at the very bottom, where the objectives are laid out. It says that they should be carried out by the district directors. I'd like to apologize again for my weak English. One of the objectives is to

[English]

reduce the revocation rate by 10% over 1997-98. Revocation,

[Translation]

unless I'm mistaken, this applies to inmates who have violated their parole conditions. If you want to reduce those cases by 10%, you have some kind of an objective. How do you intend to reduce the number of cases involving violated parole conditions?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If we improve our community-related work, fewer inmates would breach their parole conditions, because they will commit fewer crimes and will violate fewer conditions imposed by the Parole Board. If I understood what you read, the deputy commissioner said that we have to focus more on the community to prevent the revocation of parole rights for certain inmates. This does not represent a risk for public safety. On the contrary, it improves public safety.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

[English]

Mr. Grose, for seven minutes.

• 1645

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know everyone will be very disappointed that I don't want to talk about the 50-50 split. I think that was as a result of some unfortunate statements that may have been misconstrued; and having some experience with that kind of thing, I understand it.

Let's go to statutory release. I wasn't here at the time this was changed in the bill from earned remission to statutory release, and I don't understand why it was changed. I have a soft spot in my heart for earned remission. One of the main reasons is that statutory release is hard to explain. It's perceived in the real world out there that the judge gave the man six years, and we in our infinite wisdom decided to reduce it to four or whatever. I know that's not the case, but that's the perception. With earned remission, you can at least tell people that he behaved himself while he was in there, and this is a form of control we have in the prison, and this kind of thing.

Give me the reason we have SR instead of earned remission.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Since Mr. Gibbs is drinking, I'll give my best explanation.

It was a choice made by Parliament when the act was changed. What I think was the reason, and I can only guess, is that release has to be related to pubic safety, and just because the person behaved well as a prisoner doesn't mean he's going to behave well in the community. To say to people that we want to increase, or are prepared to increase, the risk to public safety in cases where inmates have been good boys in the prison, I think, was seen to be an unacceptable way of looking at things.

You could then say, why wasn't it just abolished? It's because I think there was a growing understanding at that time, as well as today, that a gradual release is the most effective way of releasing people. And the last third of the sentence, on average, is a good period to have in the community, where we still have a leash on the individual and can bring him or her back if they commit a new offence, or if they in any other way increase their risk to society. That was the idea. I thought from a professional point of view it was an encouraging thing to see that the release system was geared towards public safety instead of being seen as a reward to inmates for behaviour that has nothing to do with public safety.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Yes, that is an explanation, I agree. However, I think we both know that using the earned remission on statutory release, the person still is released at about the same time. I don't see how we get the message across that through statutory release we are assured that he has been reformed, that he is able to come back into the community. It seems to me the perception is that we're just giving him some time off, we're emptying out the prisons, we're crowded, and this kind of thing. I know better than that, but it's the perception.

I'm wondering if there's not some better way of putting it. Like a lot of things in this whole system, it's misunderstood. We're not getting our message across. If anyone should be able to do it, I should be able to do it, and I can't get it across, so I understand the difficulties.

Should we then look at possibly revamping the whole system so that a person is assessed regularly, after one-sixth of the sentence is completed, or two-thirds is completed, whatever, but it is strictly based on assessment? I realize that in statutory release there is an assessment made, and if there has been no rehabilitation at all or he still looks like a danger, he's not coming out. But could we somehow get this simple message across that no one will be released until we, in our infinite wisdom, have decided that he's not a threat to the community?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: First of all, there's a lot of history and tradition behind the two-thirds release. It goes back to the forties or the fifties when we had statutory remission.

• 1650

Mr. Ivan Grose: I remember well.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That meant that one-quarter of the time was taken off automatically and you had to escape or be involved in a prison riot or something very serious to lose that statutory remission. Added to that were a few days every month, two or three days that you could earn, but at the end of it all at two-thirds you were released. But you were released completely free. You were not to report to any parole officer, to any authority.

In 1970, the legislation changed to institute mandatory supervision, and it's from there that statutory release came into play in the 1992 CCRA.

So in my view, that history would have to be looked at very closely, and the pros and cons of having somewhat automatic release at two-thirds or another system to tighten it up. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Let's get this on the record, then.

The previous system was a complete and free release, no leash on the individual. The way it is now, we have a leash on him for the full sentence that he was given by the judge. That's the point I wanted to get across. Thank you very much, you said it very well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. MacKay, seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Commissioner, the Auditor General's report seemed to factor heavily in some of your decision-making when it came to this 50-50 release or split. I referred to his report, and it wasn't exactly a glowing report for your department. In fact, he singled out a number of problems, including reintegration activities not being effectively implemented. He talked about the need for greater supervision in the community, and a need for greater development of performance appraisals and establishing adequate quality control mechanisms. But I didn't see anywhere in that report—and I looked at it very closely—any mention from the Auditor General of the need to reduce the number of inmates who are currently housed in Canadian prisons. Would you agree with that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sir, let me say one thing, with all respect. There is no way you can convince me that there is a quota system, because I happen to know there isn't one. But I want to tell you that of course the Auditor General's report was an important one because it pointed out—and I'm talking about the one from 1994-95—a number of weaknesses in our system. And I agree with these weaknesses. When I came back as commissioner, that report was on the table. I read it very carefully and I said, yes, this is not a question of making policy. It's not a question of getting people out of prison. It's a question of doing the job that Parliament has asked us to do better. And he has pointed out a number of things.

However, if we did—and that's where the connection is between the two—everything the Auditor General asked us to do and did that 100% well, plus other things that we looked at ourselves inspired by this audit, then we thought that as a consequence of that, not as a goal but as a consequence of doing our work better, we would have a different split between the two. That's where it comes in. That's where the interplay exists.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In response to some questions from my colleague Mr. Wappel, you gave your interpretation of what technical breaches would be and the fact that on occasion some of these things might be overlooked: safeguards like failures to report, relapses to drug or alcohol use, and—what I'm particularly worried about—things like associations on the part of sex offenders with children or attendance at schoolyards. But regardless of our difference of opinions on what would constitute technical violations, I'm wondering about an assessment of a similar behaviour on the inside.

You've said quite clearly in your evidence that you don't direct the parole board, you make certain recommendations. But I was led to believe that CSC officials were being provided with training recently on a new method of preparing reports on inmates for consideration by the National Parole Board, and I wonder if there is any link between this new training and Operation Bypass. That is to say, will technical breaches on the inside result in perhaps being overlooked or favourable recommendations being made to the parole board by your officials?

• 1655

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sir, the term “technical violation” is very clear in our business. It means, and it means only, a violation of conditions set by the National Parole Board while in the community other than new offences. It's not a value-loaded term, it's what it means.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, with respect, is a technical breach not a breach of a condition that was deemed necessary for this person to comply with?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Therefore, I assume there's some assessment made as to what the criminogenic factors are that this person has to stay clear of. A technical breach of that is a signal that this person is going down the road again that led them to incarceration in the first instance.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's exactly right, and that is exactly why we are actually re-incarcerating approximately 2,000 people a year for technical violations. The goal of our work in the community is to make sure they don't go down this path and therefore don't make technical violations and therefore don't need to go back to prison. That's the train of thought.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In calculating what you call recidivism, you talk about recidivism being down. In coming to that conclusion, are you factoring in the fact that some people commit offences after their parole eligibility has expired? They've completed the conditions of their parole, their release, and then they commit an offence that leads them to incarceration. That's not factored in?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, that's not part of it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So that doesn't count as recidivism. So if the day after their parole expires they commit an offence that leads them to being charged, convicted and returned to prison, that doesn't count as recidivism.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The way we have defined and explained recidivism is that when we use it on an annual basis this is what happens in that population on an annual basis. We cannot track people after...we could, but it's a huge job, and we're not sure we can be accurate about it. Hopefully our integrated justice system will allow us to do more in that area. But we are tracking very systematically those who are under our care.

The reason we can be absolutely sure we get all of them is that, as the law is at this point in time, they will all come back to us—and also for violations that otherwise would lead to a provincial term. So we will get them all.

In terms of preparation of cases for the National Parole Board, I'd be happy to explain what that means. It means that in the past conversations between the chairman and me led us to conclude that a number of our parole officers on the inside who prepare cases for the parole board would prepare a general statement but not systematically address the criteria that exist in the parole board's decision policies.

As you know as a lawyer, when you go to court you present the case according to the criteria that exist in the law. Our parole officers were not as good as they should have been on that, and the parole board could often be frustrated, because they'd say, yes, we get your story but we don't get your assessment of the individual criteria in our decision policies. What we wanted was to make sure our cases were prepared better for the parole board's decision-making. That's all there is to it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I still hearken back to this—

The Chairman: Last question, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —issue of numbers themselves being attached and—you've used the word—the criteria that have to be applied. When those numbers are applied in conjunction with the criteria, do you not even acknowledge at a very basic level that a mixed message is being sent to your departmental officials? What I've heard today still doesn't convince me that what is happening here is that we're making it easier for individuals to be released and we're making it tougher to bring them back.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can guarantee you, sir, that since the parole board is a decision-maker in both these areas, both in releasing people and in bringing people back, and since crime is down, there's absolutely no reason to believe that it's been any easier to get out.

What I do think we can conclude is that the people we prepare for the National Parole Board prior to their release are better prepared in the sense that they're safer to release than they were before, because we are better at it. But the parole board is not releasing more people.

• 1700

Mr. Peter MacKay: Would you agree with me, Mr. Commissioner, that there are fewer non-violent offenders in Canadian prisons today than ever before? If nothing else, we have weeded out those non-violent offenders versus those who pose a more significant threat of violence.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Are you saying there are fewer violent offenders in the prisons?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No. Fewer non-violent offenders.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Fewer non-violent offenders. I would have to look up that data. There has been some change, not a huge amount as far as I know. There's not a huge change.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Not a huge change.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The change has really been in the area of sex offenders, which had a fairly steep increase and then a decrease again.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacKay. Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada, for seven minutes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We had the pleasure of hearing the former Solicitor General's reaction to the issue of quotas. He categorically denied their existence. The question was then put several times to the current Solicitor General who also replied that there were no quotas. A few weeks ago, we asked the question of the Commissioner, who said there were no quotas. A few weeks ago, at this very table, I said that I was not in favour of quotas and that I would oppose them if they did in fact exist. I was assured that there were no quotas.

Since this is not a purely political issue, but rather one that involves public safety, I would like to ask the Commissioner what we should do in concrete terms to explain once and for all that there are no quotas, so that everyone gets on the same wavelength.

[English]

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If I just had the answer.

[Translation]

I tried to explain for one hour or one hour and a half, in every possible way, that there were no quotas. There are no quotas for results that must be obtained, failing which there would be penalties or reactions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: May I make a suggestion?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand that there may be some doubts about the interpretation of what happened, but might it not be possible to send a very simple, easily understood letter to all members of Parliament and to your assistants in the regions, so that everyone is singing from the same song sheet, so as to eliminate any possible doubt about quotas?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's a very good idea. In fact, the best way of highlighting the importance of this issue would be to send

[English]

the minutes of this meeting, the blues, to all my employees.

[Translation]

That is exactly what we will do.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That would be wonderful, because we don't claim to think that everyone closely follows what we are doing here. It would be very good to highlight this.

I come now to a question that has nothing to do with quotas, fortunately. There was an announcement to the effect that you are going to be hiring about 1,000 new Correctional Service officers over the next three years. Clearly, 1,000 people is a lot of new employees. What steps have been taken to train them? Could you tell us a little about how these people will be trained in the system?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are three points on this. First, the issue for us is not just to get 1,000 more correctional officers. Another factor is the turnover of current correctional officers. That means that over the next three years, we will have to replace almost 2,500 people.

We have a plan to achieve that, including a training plan. We will continue to provide 11 weeks of training for our new officers. The new feature now, is that rather simply taking into account candidates' knowledge at the time they are selected, we are also considering their ability to learn and their personal values vis-à-vis parole criteria to ensure that their values are compatible with those set out in the Act.

• 1705

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. One of the things I find the most difficult when I go and talk to people in my riding,

[English]

is really a very serious problem. It's a problem of perception, because of what we were talking about a moment ago on another question. People hear about the bad cases, the cases that go wrong, and the public perception is that we're not doing a good job at preserving their safety. When I was first appointed parliamentary secretary and I attended a meeting of the organization, the very first thing I saw was a survey in which the conditional release organization, the National Parole Board, were at a lower popularity rate than we were, which is quite low.

Is there anything you could envisage, either from the Corrections point of view or from the National Parole Board point of view, that would address this issue of perception? Perception is not reality, except in politics, and we're dealing with that here. Could you tell me, then, if anything is done or can be done or will be done in order to try to bring knowledge to the population that is more in tune with the realities rather than perceptions?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, it just happens that last week I spent the whole week in British Columbia. I did the same thing in the Atlantic area about two months ago and I'm going to do the same thing again in three other regions, and this is only part of it. Two years ago at the National Parole Board we developed a public education strategy, a plan, because of the erroneous perception of many things. For example, in British Columbia last week I met three editorial boards and one open-talk radio station, I talked to three after-care agencies—the annual meeting of the St. Leonard Society was being held in British Columbia—the John Howard Society, and so on.

At our level, I can assure you we're doing everything we can to educate people, to inform people. We have a duty to do that. If they don't become convinced or converted to parole or conditional release, at least they're informed. But there's so much more that needs to be done by the people, not necessarily just the officials from Ottawa but by the people who live in the community. That's why I was exhorting the John Howard people, the St. Leonard Society, because their halfway houses and their offices are in all major urban areas in Canada. So it has to be done by all our partners in criminal justice. It may have to start with us, but we cannot do it alone.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Saada. Your time is up.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Already? They spoke longer.

The Chairman: Time flies.

[English]

Mr. Abbott, we'll go three minutes this time, so we can keep it going.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Three minutes.

When I visited an institution where there had been five escapes from the minimum security facility that was right outside its door, five escapes in a matter of three or four weeks, I believe, I came to a very quick conclusion—help me if I'm wrong—that perhaps the people who were put into the minimum security institutions were inappropriately put there. In other words, these are decisions that are being made, and I arrived at this conclusion because of something that was said to me by the warden and other people who were in attendance at the meeting. They referred me to paragraph 4(d) of the CCRA, which directs the service to use the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of the public, staff members and offenders.

It struck me that in terms of a culture, a culture within CSC, the culture is driven by the first part of paragraph 4(d), that the service use the least restrictive measures. I came away with that impression because I also look at a situation—I can't name the offender, but it just happened within the last couple of days—where an inmate walked away from Sumas, and I see other situations like that.

What's wrong with this picture? Should we be rewriting this paragraph? Clearly, if we're holding these people at the least restrictive level, people who have the potential and have the history of going back into society raping and murdering and committing acts of pedophilia, we surely must be able to do something about that. Is there something wrong with this section, is there something wrong with the culture? What's wrong here?

• 1710

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things. I've always felt.... Of course, whether you want to keep the section or not is entirely a political decision, but I've had no problem with that section.

When we look at risk in CSC, we look at two factors. It's a classic risk management model. Risk equals probability times severity. So if we think the individual might go out and commit a very serious offence, he will simply not go to a minimum-security institution.

Does it sometimes happen anyway that something goes wrong? Yes, absolutely. At this point, sir, we are looking into two aspects of security. We have established a major task force looking at security in general in CSC to see if there's anything we can do to better our security record, which by and large is not a bad security record. The other thing is that I've asked this special subgroup on minimum-security institutions to look at whether there is a need to change criteria or anything else.

Mr. Jim Abbott: For the sake of time, will you permit me to respectfully suggest that this doesn't always work? Looking at some of these very high-risk offenders who people say must be reintegrated into society and the difficulty of holding these people when they reach a point of eligibility for statutory release, I respectfully suggest that your assertion isn't borne out by the facts.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: This is certainly what we're trying to do. But as a I said, sir, we too are looking at it, at least in the light of the cases you have mentioned. A special group of people is looking at this issue as we speak. Some recommendations have already come in, and we are looking at what we can do in short order, because, like you, I'm not overly happy with some aspects of minimum security, although there are other aspects that are working extremely well. So we are looking at it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Wappel, three minutes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understood that the commissioner had to leave at 5.15 p.m. Do you have to leave at 5.15 p.m., roughly?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay. I have of course numerous questions, but in the three minutes I'd like to concentrate on a very technical thing, Commissioner, concerning the special handling units.

On March 22 of this year, from the very chair you're sitting in, the representative of the Association des avocats en droit carcéral du Québec, Mr. Stephen Fineberg, asked us to ask you a question, so I'm going to. It concerns commissioner's directive 551, which I'm sure you know is the one dealing with special handling units. Your authority for issuing commissioner's directives is section 97, and it refers to section 30, about the three classifications of inmates: maximum, medium or minimum.

Commissioner's directive 551 deals with people who aren't even ready for maximum. Indeed, the very first policy objective of special handling unit commissioner's directive 551 says:

To create an environment in which dangerous inmates are motivated and assisted to behave in a responsible manner so as to facilitate their integration in a maximum security institution.

Because we're charged with reviewing the act to see if there should be any additions or deletions, please don't think I'm coming from anywhere when I ask this question. He asked us to ask you what the legal authority is for commissioner's directive 551. Specifically, in your view, is it under section 97 or is it elsewhere?

• 1715

What I would like to ask you as a supplementary is do you think we should make it clear that 551 has legal authority by, for example, adding to section 30 an additional classification known as “special”?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm responding without having prepared for this particular question, but I have always seen a special handling unit as a very special category of our maximum-security institute. It is a maximum-security institution, but it has some special features to it.

As you were reading the policy objective, it struck me that maybe we should simply add in 551, section 1, “return to an ordinary maximum security institute”. I wouldn't think legally we need other provisions than what we already have. There may be a need for slight clarification in the CD itself.

But, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to go back with your question and talk to our lawyers, and if they have any different view compared to what I've expressed now, I would like to come back to you, if I may.

The Chairman: We would appreciate it, Mr. Commissioner, if you could get back to us on that technical point.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I believe it is now your hour to withdraw, or do you have any more time?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: For this time, no, I'm afraid I will have to go. But I would like to thank you for your questions, and I'm definitely prepared to come back whenever....

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your attendance today. As we said at the outset, there may be a request from the committee for you to reattend.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would be happy to.

The Chairman: We'll be filing our report in the fall, so there'll be time between now and then during which we could make arrangements.

Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much for your patience. If you want to make your opening statement, we could then go to questions afterwards.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, could we take a one-and-a-half-minute break before I do so? I know this may not be right protocol, but I personally need it.

The Chairman: I've often been accused of inflicting much pain and suffering on members. But certainly that would be in order.

[Translation]

We will take a five-minute break.

[English]

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Thank you.

• 1717

• 1727

The Chairman: We will recommence our hearing.

Mr. Gibbs, if you could make your opening statement, we would then ask the members to pose their questions.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to introduce two colleagues:

[Translation]

Ms. Renée Collette, Vice-Chairperson of the Board, here in Ottawa, and Ms. Gertrude Lavigne, Legal Counsel,

[English]

who is also here in our head office.

After two appearances before the standing committee and only two-minute questions and answers, I am very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the CCRA and address a few issues.

First, I would like to commend the members of the committee for their work on the review of the CCRA. I have followed this work with great interest, and I believe your efforts have produced a wealth of information to improve corrections and conditional release in Canada. Your efforts have also been exemplary of citizen engagement, providing Canadians with a meaningful opportunity to have their say on issues that are important to them. I am very pleased to note that many of the briefs you have received and many of the witnesses from whom you have heard expressed strong support for conditional release and the safe reintegration of offenders in the community.

[Translation]

Conditional release programs and legislation are not new to Canada. They have existed for 100 years. In fact, 1999 marks the 100th anniversary of conditional release in Canada. This 100-year history is, I believe, testament to three important facts. It reflects Canadian values of compassion and fairness which recognize that people can and do change—that offenders can become law-abiding citizens. It illustrates the enduring commitment of Canadian legislators to conditional release and public safety and their tireless efforts to refine and improve the law in this area. It also demonstrates that parole works.

• 1730

Our annual Performance Reports to Parliament have highlighted the effectiveness of parole and that our results are improving. The system is not perfect, but it is the best we have discovered. It is a Canadian approach to crime and safety that we work constantly to improve.

The CCRA review exemplifies these efforts for improvement. In this context, I would like to talk briefly about the Board's Vision for the Year 2000 and beyond, which is our plan for continuous improvement. The Vision is all about getting better at everything we do. It's about: better risk assessment and better decision-making; more inclusive processes for victims; greater understanding of cultural diversity; more effective response to the needs of Aboriginal offenders and communities; more effective approaches to building public understanding and support for conditional release as a strategy for public safety; and, finally, better partnership with the community to support effective delivery of conditional release.

[English]

I attached that vision document to my opening remarks when I provided them to the committee. I hope you will find that useful in reviewing the act.

While the vision is our road map for the future, our legislative framework will play a pivotal role in making progress towards that vision.

The CCRA is basically good legislation. When the act was proclaimed in 1992 it marked a major milestone for corrections and conditional release in Canada. It replaced the old Penitentiary Act and the Parole Act with a modern, fair and internationally respected legislative framework. The act committed the board to public safety, to openness and to accountability, to respect the needs and rights of victims, and to measures to address the needs of special groups of offenders, including aboriginal people and women.

As it is currently written, the act provides the board with many of the tools it needs to do the job and to do it well, but there are a few areas where I believe change is necessary in order to provide a more meaningful role for victims in the conditional release process and to enhance the quality of the board's decision-making.

The Solicitor General has already raised the issue of the accelerated parole review, so I will not address APR in these remarks. The minister also raised the issue of victims, and I would like to follow up on this topic and provide a bit more detail.

The CCRA provides victims with the right to obtain certain information, to observe parole hearings, and to gain access to NPB decisions through the board's decision registry. These provisions are an important first step. They created a solid foundation, and now we are ready to move on. The standing committee's report, entitled Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto, shows us the way. The report makes 17 recommendations to improve the quality of information and assistance for victims throughout the justice system, including two that touch directly on the board.

One calls for victims to be given the presumptive right to read an updated victim impact statement in person or by audio or video tape at the National Parole Board hearings. The board agrees with this recommendation. Implementation of legislative provisions to this effect will require careful consideration to ensure, for example, that hearings do not become adversarial, but we believe this approach will create a more open, transparent and effective process for conditional release decisions, leading to better preparation, better information sharing and better assessment of risk for release.

• 1735

The second recommendation calls for the board to make audio tapes or transcripts of conditional release hearings available to victims for consultation purposes. The board agrees with the proposal to make tapes available. In fact, we currently produce tapes of hearings, so implementation of this approach would focus on appropriate access and control of tapes, issues of privacy, and so on.

We have some serious concerns, however, about the use of transcripts of hearings. We believe that production of these transcripts will be disruptive to the hearing process, extremely labour intensive and costly. Further, much of the information in transcripts, especially key elements dealing with risk assessment, is already available in the board's decisions registry.

[Translation]

Public safety is our top priority. Quality decisions about the timing and conditions for release of offenders to the community are critical for public safety. The key to quality decisions is quality decision-makers, that is dedicated and professional individuals who are selected as candidates for appointment to the Board based on the principles of competence and merit.

Some of you may recall that we began to revamp our selection process for Board members about five years ago. The result is a new selection process with four key steps: announcing vacancies in the Canada Gazette; assessing applications against specific criteria, such as knowledge and experience in criminal justice and demonstrated analytical capabilities; interviewing applicants who meet the criteria to create a list of the best-qualified candidates; and referring the list of candidates to the Solicitor General for consideration and recommendation to the Governor in Council.

This process reflects the principles of competence and merit and has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of Board decisions. As a result, we would like to see the process and principles officially recognized and protected.

In closing, there are two issues I would like to raise which may not involve legislation but which are nonetheless of critical importance to corrections and conditional release.

The Solicitor General made reference earlier to the over-representation of Aboriginal Canadians in prison populations. For several years, the Board has been working with its criminal justice partners to address this issue, and we have made progress through initiatives such as elder-assisted hearings, culturally relevant training and appointment of Aboriginal people as Board members and staff. The fact is, however, that much remains to be done if we are to address Aboriginal issues in an effective manner.

[English]

My final point deals with public information. I have already mentioned it. Over the past several years, we have collected data that confirms that parole works, that gradual release of offenders to the community is an effective strategy for public safety. This story is, however, largely unknown to the Canadian public and the media. The board is determined to tell the success story of parole to Canadians through accurate public information. Activities around the 100th anniversary of conditional release and the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the National Parole Board will provide the foundation for these efforts, and we plan to expand these activities in the coming year.

• 1740

I was, therefore, very pleased to note in the proceedings of this committee that, in many briefings to the committee, accurate public information was identified as an important priority in the CCRA review.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. We have 30 minutes before the bells begin to ring for the vote. There are five of us and I would therefore suggest five-minute turns.

[English]

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gibbs, for being with us today.

I wonder if you can start to put things into perspective. Do you have any idea how many people, currently on parole or out on statutory release, are at large without supervision; that is, they have actually broken their parole and the parole board, the authorities, don't know where they are at this point? How many offenders would there be in Canada in that category?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: If I understand your question correctly, are you asking me how many people, on parole or statutory release, are unlawfully at large?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'm not sure if it's broken down that finely. I think they may be mixed in with those who have escaped from institutions and are unlawfully at large from any form of parole or statutory release. It may also include temporary absences. I think it's in the vicinity of about 900, and I'm somewhat guessing here. That goes back decades, you must understand. Once you are unlawfully at large, you are so for an indefinite period.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Presumably that's a concern to authorities, in your opinion.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Absolutely.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Do you have any idea what is being done about it?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: We are particularly concerned, first of all, when lifers who are on parole abscond, because obviously they were incarcerated for probably the most serious offences you could commit. So we like to advise the police to put their priorities on finding those people, or anyone else on the loose who has extremely violent tendencies.

I have been a long-time member of the National Joint Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federal Correctional Services, and we have continuously reminded our police colleagues to put their priorities that way. Now, some do so and some do not.

Mr. Jim Abbott: On a directly related question, there was an interesting article yesterday in a paper in Calgary relating to one Kenneth Gordon Savage. Perhaps I'll acquaint you with some of the details. I'm not interested in talking about his situation as much as using it as an example, if I may.

One of his parole documents says:

At the age of 21, you began serving a preventative detention sentence as a Dangerous Sexual Offender effective March 9, 1967, for the rape of a 3-1/2-year-old girl in July 1966. The victim was found in some bushes unconscious and badly beaten about the face.

Rather than going through the details for the sake of time, the point is that this individual has a 30-year record. I'd like to you to comment on what the columnist said:

Interesting, isn't it, how when psychiatrists say a prisoner doesn't pose a risk to society, such advice is always heeded, but when the same psychiatrist says a prisoner is dangerous to society, that advice is often disregarded?

Would you care to comment on her observation?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I have difficulty meshing the same psychiatrist saying that someone is not a risk to society, and yet he has a potential for violence. Is that what you're saying?

• 1745

Mr. Jim Abbott: I think what is pointed out here is that there were three people on this parole hearing and one of them took the advice and was wanting to withhold the release of this individual, who, at the time—and he has repeated violent sexual offences over a 30-year period against the most innocent in our society—had served four of his seven years and had reached statutory release and was let go out the door.

Rather than throwing stones at the National Parole Board, what I'm really asking you, as the chairman of the National Parole Board, is what do we have to do in law to protect three-and-a-half-year-old girls from this kind of animal?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I think you already have in law, in part II, the conditional release part, which gives some very clear parameters as to how these kinds of people should be assessed. Sometimes the best minds around the corrections system and the parole board will not make the right decision. In retrospect or in looking at it, you can say that, but at the time.... Again, I don't have the details of this case.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Please pardon my exasperation, but you have a person with a 30-year history of attacking innocent young girls, who has served four years of his seven-year term. Was it a bad decision by the members of the National Parole Board, or do we have a deficiency in our law? Which is it? Why was this person let go at the end of four of seven years when he has such a continuous violent predilection to damaging the lives of these innocent young girls?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: At the time they made the decision, in their best judgment the board members felt that he was a safe release. Again, I'm not familiar with the findings and recommendations of that particular case, what was said, and so on, so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I've always given clear direction to all board members that a person can be convicted and sentenced, and sentenced sometimes for a very long time for a violent offence or offences, but at the time he's being reviewed, considered for conditional release, for day or full parole, he ought not to be any longer a violent person. Okay?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, five minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Gibbs, thank you for being here today. You said in your introductory remarks that you were generally satisfied with the Act in its present form.

However, during all of the sub-committee's hearings, the matter of the expedited review procedure kept coming up. First of all, are you satisfied with the present expedited review procedure?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Not quite.

Mr. Richard Marceau: What would you change?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I think that the expedited review concept is a good one. When someone is incarcerated for the first time, for a non-violent offence, it is worth examining his case as quickly as possible and... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... the date on which he becomes eligible.

The problem is that we must prove that we are convinced that a particular person may eventually commit a violent offence. People who are incarcerated for non-violent offences include not only those who have committed property crimes and fraud, but also people who are drug traffickers. These people are all eligible.

• 1750

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, you would like those who have been convicted of drug trafficking or money laundering to not be eligible for the expedited review procedure.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Precisely. We agree with the concept of expedited review. It is the criteria that we have trouble with.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm happy to hear you say that. A few months ago already, I tabled a bill with that in mind. So I'm happy to hear your position on that issue.

One of the elements that bothered a number of people was the automatic nature of the expedited review procedure. Some people said that the National Parole Board should at least have a look at the case in order to determine if the person in question should benefit from the expedited review procedure. In other words, you would have to go back to what was done previously. Do you agree with those people or do you think that the automatic nature of the expedited review procedure should remain?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Any presumptive release is of concern to the Board, and that is what's happening in this case. It isn't necessarily as automatic as some people might think, but we examine each case and we must prove that we are convinced that the person will commit a violent crime. It seems to me that there are crimes that aren't necessarily violent, but that are still not acceptable, such as drug trafficking, fraud, etc.. The Criminal Code is designed to prevent these unacceptable acts.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Whether we examine a file or hold a hearing, we can be convinced that the person will leave and commit these offences. Unless we are convinced that the person will commit a violent crime, we have to release him.

Mr. Richard Marceau: That's it. Isn't that the problem? Should we not reverse the onus? Should we not force the person who will benefit from the expedited review procedure to prove that he deserves it, rather than forcing your organization to prove that it is convinced that the person will commit a violent crime if he is released?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Of course, we would prefer your first option.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can you describe the role that the National Parole Board plays at this time in the case of an expedited review procedure? What do you do exactly?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The file is submitted to us. I must also say that it is encouraging to see that, because the expedited review is compulsory under the Act, all cases arrive in time for them to be dealt with by the eligibility date.

Therefore, when the case is submitted to us, we do a paper review in the office. When we have no reason to believe that the person will commit a violent crime, we release him on paper. When we have any type of doubt, we send two commissioners to conduct a hearing, but the criterion remains the same: the person has committed a non-violent crime and poses no risk of committing a violent crime after his release.

Therefore, we examine the file in the office and then, if necessary, there is a hearing. We don't hold a hearing for each case.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Marceau.

[English]

Mr. MacKay, for five minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presence and your presentation, Mr. Gibbs.

You don't have a 50-50 split working in the National Parole Board?

• 1755

Mr. Willie Gibbs: No. For the record, we review and assess every case on its own merits.

Mr. Peter MacKay: A major part of those criteria, I suggest to you, comes from the recommendations of CSC, that is to say, you will receive a report before every parole hearing, and there is usually a very specific recommendation contained in that report from CSC. Is that correct?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I would suggest to you, and I'm open to correction, that it would be on a rare occasion that you would override the recommendation of CSC. The parole board's decision would put a great deal of emphasis on what you were told in that report.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: No, I cannot agree with you there, Mr. MacKay. We call that a concurrence rate between CSC and NPB, and I think it's about 80%. So yes, 80% we would but 20% we would not. Again, we don't keep score. It's just the way business is being done.

But we are extremely careful as to how the case is presented and the contents of the file. The reports don't come only from one person. At the end of the day, the institutional parole officer is at the hearing by herself or himself to put forward the CSC's last recommendation. But at our disposal we have the reports from the court, the prosecution, the police, and psychologists, any report that was provided to us on the case. So if, for example, the parole officer embellishes the case, we can say, what about this report and that report? Also, our interview with the offender can last anywhere from half an hour to an hour and a half. We have to be satisfied that undue risk is not there.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure, and I understand that there are obviously other very important criteria, including the presentation of the inmates themselves. But I would suggest again strongly that the report that comes from CSC is a major consideration. I'm not trying to sow seeds of dissent or paranoia within your two affiliations, but if CSC were to make an inaccurate recommendation or to gild the lily and make a presentation in their report that perhaps wasn't really reflective of what was going on within the institution, the parole board has no way to independently check on that recommendation, that is to say, whether they were in fact on good behaviour while on the inside. You rely solely on CSC to provide that information as being accurate.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'd be hard-pressed to believe the reports presented to us were meant to intentionally mislead us, because there are other ways to find out what really is the situation besides from the institutional parole officer. So I would think by and large that's not the case. But it's still our job to ask the right questions in order to verify the information and to be satisfied we have it all before we make a decision.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Gibbs, the current correction system has a correctional investigator with a budget of over $1 million. One of the problems pointed out in the Auditor General's report was a lack of information sharing, often between CSC and the parole board. On the subject of victims, I would suggest that has been one of their major complaints throughout. We heard much of that during the hearings that took place, from which came the report you referred to, which is entitled Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto.

What is your feeling currently on the suggestion that a victim ombudsman, modelled after the correctional investigator, be set up to ensure that victims' families are informed, victims such as Mr. and Mrs. Solomon and Ms. McCuaig, who have serious concerns about the functioning of the system, including parole eligibility dates, location, and procedure, very basic information sharing that sometimes doesn't occur.

• 1800

There was a recent example involving the murder of Cameron Alkins. The individual who committed the crime was released, and the mother didn't hear about it until she read it in a news report. I would suggest to you that a focal point and a central office with federal recognition equivalent to that of the correctional investigator would certainly go a long way in addressing some of those inequities in the system.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mackay.

Mr. Gibbs, perhaps you could give a concise answer, please.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I don't think I'm in a position to recommend or to give an opinion on an ombudsman. I can tell you how we try to work and liaise with victims and victims' groups—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Would it be helpful to add that to your liaison with victims?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: First of all, as soon as victims' groups or people who look after victims' interests, such as Priscilla de Villiers from CAVEAT or Mr. Steve Sullivan, get in touch with us to obtain information, we try to respond as quickly as possible. Also, in every regional office across the country we have two or three of what we call victim liaison people, and some of those are in fact CSC employees, in order that we give the same information and there's no confusion and so on.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I think that at this time that's the best we can do. Whether or not we can improve the system, I don't know.

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Wappel, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr. Gibbs, I really want to concentrate on APR in my five minutes, but I have an unusual initial question. Are you familiar with section 109?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Are you referring to the act?

Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes. Do you have the act there? I knew you would. It's section 109 on page 47. For the benefit of people who don't have the act, it says that the board could cancel an order made by a court with regard to a prohibition order. All I really want to know is whether the board has ever used that section, and if so, how many times. If you don't have the answer, you could undertake to provide it to us, and that would be fine.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The reason I'm so unfamiliar with this is that in the five years I've been at the board, I've never heard of a case where the board used it. That doesn't mean we have not used it, but I have never heard of it. It's all new to me.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay. Maybe you could have your officials look to see if it has been used, and if so, how many times and under what circumstances.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Of course we will do that.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay. Thank you.

With regard to APR, the very last witness in our public hearings in Montreal was Mr. Patrick Altimas of Maison L'Intervalle in Montreal. Virtually his last words to us were that “APR is a travesty of parole”. He deals with mental health issues, and he explained to us why he felt that way. I thought it was an interesting way for the public hearings to end, with a very blunt assessment like that.

Then I listened to your assessment of APR, and I want to discuss a couple of points on that. You indicated that APR was for first-timers who were non-violent. Of course, we know that the term “first-timer” doesn't mean what the ordinary person would understand it to mean. You mean a first-time federal offender.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I thought that's what I had said, but if I didn't, thank you for your correction. It's serving time for a non-violent offence. They can still be eligible even if they've committed a violent offence two years or ten years ago.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'd like to hear your view as chair of the National Parole Board on the following example.

Suppose you had someone who was convicted of a violent offence and got six months in provincial jail. Suppose he had five or six or seven provincial convictions and then finally was sent to the federal system after five, six or seven offences for a break and enter, which some people might consider to be a violent offence—especially if it happens to you—but isn't deemed to be a violent offence. All I really want to know is, are you, as the chair of the National Parole Board, comfortable with the current criterion—that is, a first-time offender for a non-violent crime sentenced federally—or should we consider revising that to first-time offender, period, and non-violent crime, period? What's your view on that?

• 1805

Mr. Willie Gibbs: First, I'm in disagreement with the criterion. I think I've already stated that. When you look at a person who is in a penitentiary for the first time but has six or eight provincial terms of incarceration, you can hardly say that he's a first-time criminal. I mean, he's on his way into a criminal way of life.

Second, as far as the past violence is concerned, these would be the cases where we would send two board members to conduct a hearing to ensure that they go over all his previous behaviour and be satisfied that he's not going out over the next two years, depending how long it is before his warrant expiry, and commit a violent offence.

At the very end you asked another question, and I just missed it.

Mr. Tom Wappel: About whether it should be a non-violent crime.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. You asked whether it should be for a really first-time offender in a federal institution, and I would say you probably would not find more than 1%, if that, who are serving a federal term for a non-violent offence and it is the first offence ever in their lives. You might say it would be non-applicable.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Well, that's my point. If we take into consideration provincial time, then APR would apply to far fewer offenders, wouldn't it?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: And that's a question of management, and how many people are in the prisons, and numbers, and the 50-50 or 60-40, whatever you want to call it, etc. Isn't that right?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Right.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I don't want to nitpick for my last question, but I want to be clear. The act requires the board to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender would commit a violent offence, and I think you used the term “convincing proof” that they wouldn't commit a violent offence. What's your view of “convincing proof” as opposed to “no reasonable grounds”?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'm sorry for the bad wording on my part. That's what it has to be, “reasonable grounds” that he's going to commit a violent offence.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's my point. Do you think that's too high a burden?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The word “proof” should not have been mentioned.

Mr. Tom Wappel: My question is, do you think that no reasonable grounds is too high a burden, or should it be on a balance of probabilities?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I don't think that's the issue, because we have to assess generally reoffending. I think we're not bad at that. What we have problems with is why does a person have to go out and not commit a violent offence, but we believe he's going to commit a non-violent offence, and still merit release on parole? There's something that doesn't jive here.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.

I know it's the opposition's turn and the bells are going to ring, but I would ask the opposition's indulgence in allowing Mr. Grose, a member who has made the trips to all five regions and hasn't missed any meetings, if we could bend the rule and allow him a round.

Mr. Jim Abbott: We're full of goodwill.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gibbs, do we have adequate parole supervision to possibly eliminate or lower the technical violations? The number of 2,000 in a year bothers me a bit. Technical violation, I think, might indicate not quite close enough supervision. If the parolee reoffends, well, that's something that was in his mind and I don't think tight supervision can do much about it. I know your automatic answer will probably be, yes, we're doing fine, thank you. Look, if you don't have enough, we're the ones who are responsible. It's not your fault.

How big a caseload are these supervisors carrying?

• 1810

Mr. Willie Gibbs: You know very well that parole supervision is in the jurisdiction of CSC—

Mr. Ivan Grose: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: —but I'm very familiar with the caseload. I think that generally the caseload is about 20 to 25 per individual, depending on geographic areas. In some isolated areas it can be as low as 12 or 15. It depends on how far you have to drive or fly and so on. As I say, it is generally from 20 to 25, and this is seen around the world as one of the better caseload ratios that you can find.

On the matter of special conditions, I think this is an area here...it used to be called special conditions because they were special. In the current legislation they have changed the wording to “additional conditions”. The standard condition, as you know, is that you have to live somewhere, you have to report to a parole officer, and all that stuff. But special conditions are for specific criminogenic factors, or specific tendencies that the offender would slip into. We want to make sure we control or help assist him in not having a relapse like that.

My view is that we should return to the term “special condition”. When I arrived at the board, I don't know if it was because they were called additional, but they could have eight or ten or twelve of those on a case. That meant we were setting a person for failure. If you have enough of those, he's going to break one or two.

So the position we have taken at the National Parole Board in recent times is that you only apply a special condition if that special condition is going to directly prevent that person from committing a crime. For example, if he has a sexual deviance problem with young children, if he has substance abuse problems and so on, and you think it's related to his criminal activity, you put that one.... So now we're down to two, three or four per case.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Victim statements at parole hearings—quite frankly, I'm basically opposed to them, but I guess we have to live with them. What worries me is that I think the parole board, in some cases, then gets into resentencing the inmate, and I don't think that should be.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I am sorry, the parole board would...?

Mr. Ivan Grose: The parole board is put in the position of possibly resentencing the inmate, in that he didn't get enough time in the first place and you're second-thinking the court. I don't believe that's your function.

Who is considered a victim? Is the Canadian Bankers Association considered a victim?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's already defined in the law.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I obviously don't know the law. I'm one of the few non-lawyers on the committee.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Maybe we could ask the legal counsel to read it, if you wish.

Mr. Ivan Grose: No. You're talking about individuals who have suffered—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It's usually victims of violent crime or their representatives who ask either to observe hearings or to provide a victim impact statement at this time. Those are 99% of the cases.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you. I have two very short ones.

Information on parole successes: I've never heard of them...well, I've heard of one. Could you please provide us with some figures on this sort of thing? It gives us something to talk to the public about. And this is what we have to do. Give us the successes, the ratios, the 10% who reoffend, whatever it is, and then we have something to talk about, because the public's idea is that everyone on parole eventually goes back to prison.

The other point I wanted to clear up—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Could I make a point before you ask the second one?

Mr. Ivan Grose: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'm glad you're on board, because this year we're tabling in Parliament our fourth performance report by the National Parole Board. It's a blue copy. It's only so thick and it's in both languages, not hard to read. So it's there. If you want a special copy for this year, the next one will be tabled in September or October. If you want last year's one, we'd be happy to give it to you, but you're going to get a brand new one for this past fiscal year.

• 1815

Mr. Ivan Grose: I need it.

The other thing—this will only take a second—is in regard to parolees who disappear. Do you or the Correctional Service ever write them off your books? A fair percentage of those 900 could be long dead or Lord knows where.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It is the responsibility of the Correctional Service and the police. As far as I know, we don't write them off our books.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Okay. That sounds like a thing government would do.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

The bells are ringing, but Mr. Abbott had a couple of quick questions.

Mr. Jim Abbott: At the end of the presentation in Toronto, we had very compelling testimony by Dr. Marnie Rice, who is a person of great repute and great credentials who, as I understood her presentation, was saying that people could be identified as never really being suitable to be in the general population—I'm not talking about the general prison population; I'm talking about the general population of any country—anywhere, ever again. Would you agree?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'm sorry, the bells interrupted. She said something was not suitable...?

Mr. Jim Abbott: There are some people who, as in the example I used earlier, have a constant, never-ending, unceasing history of aggressive, anti-social, violent behaviour and are not suitable to be in the general population.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Right.

Mr. Jim Abbott: We don't really have any laws that will capture them. We do have the dangerous sexual offender, but again, it looks like the Supreme Court could try to overturn that or there could be a challenge under that.

I'd like your comment about that. It's my position that there are some people who should be permanently, forever incarcerated in order to keep the most vulnerable in our society in safety.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I would not agree with that, but I will tell you this. We have in our system some 200 dangerous offenders, called in the old days “dangerous sexual offenders”. Only about 8% to 10% of them are on some form of conditional release. The rest are all inside. We are very careful with those people. So I could never accept that someone will never in their lifetime have a chance to reintegrate into society, but many of them never do.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.

Mr. MacKay, a short question and a short response.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, and thank you for patience, Mr. Gibbs. I know it has been a long afternoon.

One of the most troubling things I heard today came from the commissioner, Mr. Ingstrup, when he spoke about technical breaches. My understanding—and you spoke briefly about that in response to Mr. Grose's question—is that these conditions of release that are put in place by the parole board include such things as abstinence from alcohol, reporting, must be employed, must stay away from certain people, places, and things. I'm not trying to pit you against.... Well, to be honest, I am. It's out there.

Doesn't that trouble you, that in essence CSC, through that report, through the commissioner's own direction, is telling those individuals who are out there supervising that the conditions that were put in place by your parole board can in certain instances be ignored, those criminogenic factors that have been identified and highlighted by your parole board?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: We were concerned a couple of years ago about this situation, and we've discussed it. I totally believe there are no quotas at this time.

Having said that, we are very serious about breaches of conditions that we impose. That's why, in the law, we have the authority for direct revocation. Over the last year or maybe a little longer, there have been a lot more direct revocations by the parole board, and for a long time before that.

• 1820

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can I interrupt you? I'm sorry, but doesn't CSC have to make some form of recommendation? Can you cut them out of the—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: They do. That's exactly why I'm saying that. If a person breaches a condition, you can counsel the person, as a parole officer, and do certain things. You can sort of restructure the conditional release. You can even make a recommendation that he goes from full to day parole, or you can suspend it. You have 30 days to make up your mind what you're going to do. You can even cancel the suspension. But a report goes to the board. If we're satisfied that everything was done and the case is still an assumable risk, we'll say “No action further than this”. If we are not, we will either do a post-suspension hearing and satisfy ourselves or we will revoke directly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: On the direct revocation, you would agree that CSC, in their supervision capacity, should act as the filter. If they have made a conscious decision that's out there now, like a virus, that says there should be a 10% reduction in revocations, don't you find that troubling? Before it even gets to your department, before you have the ability to invoke that revocation, CSC has said there should be 10% fewer.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: But they're compelled to make a report to us if there's a breach of a condition we've imposed.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. We will have to have to cut it off there.

For the committee members' benefit, we'll be meeting tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. Mr. Stewart, the correctional investigator, who is observing these hearings, will check his schedule, apparently, and will be with us either tomorrow or on Wednesday. If not, we'll meet anyway tomorrow to start the consideration of our report.

Merci beaucoup.